<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Intelligent Agent &#187; Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ia-blog.com/category/google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ia-blog.com</link>
	<description>A blog by Robert Berkman, Editor, The Information Advisor</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:29:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Is Google Making (Researchers) Stupid?</title>
		<link>http://www.ia-blog.com/2008/06/29/143/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ia-blog.com/2008/06/29/143/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:48:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Berkman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketresearch.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[librarians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libraries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicholas Carr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ia-blog.com/2008/06/29/143/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nicholas Carr, in the latest issue of Atlantic Magazine, asks if Google is Making us Stupid. Editor and Blogger Robert Berkman asks if the Google mindset is making researchers passive and lazy.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nicholas Carr, <a href="http://www.roughtype.com/">blogger</a>, journalist, and author, most recently of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Big-Switch-Rewiring-Edison-Google/dp/0393062287">The Big Switch</a>,  wrote <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google">this </a>short but thought- provoking piece in this month&#8217;s issue of the Atlantic called <em>Is Google Making us Stupid?: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains.</em></p>
<p>It&#8217;s a succinct and readable discussion not only of some of the possible downside of living so much of our lives on the Net, but also a nice mini lecture on some of the positive and negative impacts of technology on culture, going all the way back to Socrates&#8217; classic concerns that writing would reduce all of our abilities to remember, and to devalue oral communications.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been thinking of a related issue for a little bit of time too&#8211;what does the Google mindset do to the serious researcher? Is it making us lazy, more passive, more willing to define research as tapping a few words into a search engine and accepting the top 10 results as our result?</p>
<p>Librarians and information professionals, academics, grad students (I hope) and truly savvy searchers know that good research is much more that this of course. But I know I&#8217;m as guilty as anyone out there when I turn to lean back in my desk chair and call up my home page Google to find an answer, source, or piece of information to a research question I&#8217;m pursuing.</p>
<p>The key to me it seems is to remember to be <em>mindful </em>that good research is (or at least begins) as an <strong><em>inner directed</em></strong> process.  That is:  taking the time to figure out what you really want to discover, <strong>why </strong>you want it, what you&#8217;re going to do with it, what is the most likely place to find it/who would know (including sources off the Net), and taking the steps and process you need to do the work to find the best sources, most efficiently. It&#8217;s not tapping words out into a search engine, or even worse, relying on an automated or &#8220;intelligent&#8221; solution that sends you articles, blog postings, news etc. that the system thinks or assumes you want, based on some algorithm, past search behaviour, etc.</p>
<p>Even in the age of the Net and Google, to truly perform research still means making an effort and taking an ACTIVE not passive approach to the process. It still means thinking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ia-blog.com/2008/06/29/143/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Trends for Market Research?</title>
		<link>http://www.ia-blog.com/2007/05/25/google-trends-for-market-research/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ia-blog.com/2007/05/25/google-trends-for-market-research/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 13:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Berkman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iablog.onlineinc.com/?p=109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Although Google got a lot of press earlier this month when it introduced its “hot trends” function that identified the fastest growing search statements daily, I still much prefer the older Google Trends to track the frequency of searches over time, and have recently been considering its value in helping discover new markets.
 
What I [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.ia-blog.com/uploaded_images/GoogleTrendsCarbonTrading-725634.JPG"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://www.ia-blog.com/uploaded_images/GoogleTrendsCarbonTrading-725338.JPG" border="0" /></a>
<div>Although Google got a lot of press earlier this month when it introduced its “hot trends” function that identified the fastest growing search statements daily, I still much prefer the older <a style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)" href="http://www.google.com/trends">Google Trends</a> to track the frequency of searches over time, and have recently been considering its value in helping discover new markets.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What I think is the most interesting is that on Google trends you can view results broken down by cities and regions. You can also choose what time period you’d like to see the trend graphed for. So, for instance, in the image here, the phrase “carbon trading” was searched most often in the city of Mumbai India, followed by Sydney Australia and then Delhi, India.This regional breakdown adds meaning and value. For instance, if you were thinking of entering the carbon trading market, and wanted a lead as to what parts of the globe are most attuned to this concept and where people are looking for more information, this could be potentially valuable information.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The best words and phrases to use on Google Trends would be those that are more &#8220;packed&#8221; with meaning (e.g. &#8220;sustainability&#8221;; &#8220;social networks&#8221;) and where you could reasonably presume that a search implies that it&#8217;s a hot topic/and or people are thinking about it, and/or there is some demand for learning more. You could do this for product names as well, of course. And combining words or phrases (via commas) could also be used to help ensure that the word/phrase is in the context you want: e.g. &#8220;social networks,&#8221; &#8220;web 2.0&#8243;</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Keep in mind, though, that the trends site is what Google calls a “Google Labs&#8221; product which means that it&#8217;s still in an early stage of development and that you can’t really count on what you discover as a sure thing. But I still think it&#8217;s pretty neat to consider for possible leads as one more input when doing initial new market research</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ia-blog.com/2007/05/25/google-trends-for-market-research/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
